AUSTRALIA: IMF to Get 30% Share From Flood Compensation-------------------------------------------------------Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that thousandsof victims of the Brisbane floods could be obliged to give alitigation financier up to 30 per cent of any compensation theyreceive -- even if that comes from a no-fault compensation schemeinstead of a court case.

This risk has emerged from analysis of the funding agreementsbeing used by litigation funder IMF (Australia) for its proposedclass action over the flooding of Brisbane.

That analysis, conducted for The Australian by Freehillslitigation partner Michael Mills, reveals that 2000 flood victimswho signed up with IMF are only entitled to keep 100 per cent ofany ex gratia payments in limited circumstances. Ex gratiapayments received after January 1 next year, or after IMF beginsproceedings, must be shared with that company, Mr. Mills' analysisshows.

This means any statutory compensation scheme would need to becreated by the newly elected state government within months inorder to eliminate the prospect that up to 30 per cent of paymentsto some flood victims would finish up with IMF.

Before the state election, Campbell Newman had hinted he favored anon-litigious method of compensating flood victims. After beinginformed of Mr. Mills' analysis of the funding agreements, the newPremier issued a statement saying he strongly urged anyonecontemplating signing any agreement to carefully read the fineprint and seek independent advice.

IMF executive director John Walker said his company planned tobegin proceedings in "four to five months". "We don't want apercentage of something that we are not involved in getting forclients," Mr. Walker said. "The way this is dealt with in thefunding agreements is that we don't get a percentage of it if itcomes before proceedings are commenced, or before January of nextyear."

The funding agreements entitle IMF to 20-30 per cent of anydamages or settlement from court proceedings, within the normalrange charged by litigation funders.

IMF and law firm Maurice Blackburn, which will be running the casefor IMF, have both said the massive scale of the proposed classaction meant it would not be possible without the backing of alitigation funder.

IMF has said there are a number of options to overcome the factthere was no provision for class actions in the law of Queensland.

Mr. Mills said litigation funding could serve a useful publicpurpose in providing access to justice, provided the return wasequitable and fitted the scale of investment and risk. Afteranalyzing the funding agreement, Mr. Mills expressed concern as towhether IMF's share of flood victims' compensation would be fair,especially if the state of Queensland sought to proactivelyestablish what he described as a sensible no fault compensationscheme, such as had been established in the U.S. after theSeptember 11 terrorist attacks.

He said one focus for flood victims should be on the viability ofan administrative compensation scheme, as has been done forSeptember 11 victims and other disasters. Such schemes seek tomake the best use of the funds available "rather than waste theavailable funds on legal costs and disputes over liability", hesaid.

"The IMF agreement is a barrier to such a sensible outcome."

He said it was arguable that IMF's entitlement to share in any no-fault compensation payments made by the state of Queensland mightbe even broader than might first appear.

"It is not clear that any payment made by the state of Queenslandto an applicant who had signed a funding agreement would not becharacterized by IMF, perhaps correctly, as the settlement of aclaim rather than an ex gratia payment," Mr. Mills said.

"In this case, IMF would be entitled to a percentage of anysettlement payments made by the state of Queensland to applicantsafter they had signed a funding agreement.

"So, in effect, IMF will take their percentage from any settlementpayments made by the state of Queensland and on any view areentitled to them after they commence legal proceedings or afterJanuary 1, 2013."

He said funding agreements could be a barrier to an administrativecompensation scheme because "the Queensland government and floodvictims risk losing a percentage of any compensation generated bysuch an administrative scheme even if it is set up or paid withoutany legal proceedings having been necessary or instituted".

Mr. Mills said the funding agreement indicated IMF would beentitled to take a percentage from flood victims "even if theyhave not funded any legal action against the state of Queensland".

"There is, however, an even larger public policy concern,"Mr. Mills said.

"Absent a statutory compensation scheme, flood victims are likelyto become a legal football as all parties look to assign or denyblame in court."

AVON PRODUCTS: Former Director Denies Claims in Shareholder Suit----------------------------------------------------------------C.M. Matthews, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports thatthe former director of global internal audit at Avon Products Inc.says that allegations he threatened to release a report detailingcorruption at the company in order to extract a larger severancepackage are false.

The allegations were leveled against the former Avon auditor,Fabian LaPresa, in a securities class action suit filed earlierthis month. The suit claims that Avon and two senior executiveslied to investors about the company's compliance with the ForeignCorrupt Practices Act, and seeks compensatory damages on behalf ofAvon shareholders.

A lawyer for Mr. LaPresa, Robert Heim, told Corruption Currentsthat the allegations are "absurd and untrue."

The suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, is the latestchapter in the company's troubles that first came to light in 2008when it disclosed it had launched an internal investigation intopotentially improper payments. Avon is currently underinvestigation by U.S. authorities.

One of the suit's primary accusations is that Avon and its seniormanagement knew about or disregarded what the suit called "thepervasive bribery activities" at Avon China as early as 2005. Inparticular, it alleges that former Avon Vice Chairman CharlesCramb approved additional severance benefits for Mr. LaPresa afterMr. LaPresa threatened to give the Securities and ExchangeCommission an internal audit report reflecting bribes Avonexecutives made to Chinese government officials.

"Thus, Cramb's agreement to buy LaPresa's silence with a largertermination package plainly reflected his awareness of Avon's FCPAviolations no later than LaPresa's last day at Avon in June 2006,"the suit said.

Mr. Heim said Mr. LaPresa was laid off as a result ofrestructuring at Avon, and that the company gave Mr. LaPresa astandard severance package. He said that Mr. LaPresa neveroffered to withhold information about company conduct in exchangefor a higher severance package.

"The complaint that contains these allegations relies on unnamedsources that are clearly uninformed about the circumstances underwhich Mr. Lapresa left Avon," Mr. Heim said.

The suit said the allegations related to Mr. LaPresa were based oninterviews with a witness identified as a "former Avon SeniorManager, Internal Audit, Latin and North America" who worked underMr. LaPresa. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gregg S. Levin, didn'timmediately return a request for comment.

Mr. Heim also said that Avon's business activities in the AsiaPacific and China regions were outside the scope of Mr. LaPresa'sresponsibilities.

The U.S. Justice Department and the SEC are currentlyinvestigating the door-to-door cosmetics giant for possibleviolations of the FCPA, which bars bribes to foreign officials. Aseparate SEC probe is looking into whether or not the companyimproperly disclosed information to Wall Street analysts. Nocharges have been filed and the company has said it is cooperatingwith the investigations.

Mr. Heim declined to say whether or not Mr. LaPresa had beenapproached by prosecutors. Spokeswomen for the Justice Departmentand the SEC declined to comment.

Avon said Mr. Cramb was fired in January in connection with theFCPA investigation. In December, Avon said it would replace chiefexecutive Andrea Jung. Neither could be reached for comment.

The shareholder suit was filed by the court-appointed leadplaintiffs, LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH andSGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf ofpurchasers of Avon stock between July 2006 and October 2011. Itseeks compensatory damages on the grounds that investors boughtAvon's stock at artificially inflated prices during that period.

The fishermen say in their complaint that BP's co-defendants "DRCEmergency Services LLC and Danos and Curole Marine Contractors LLCcolluded in this despicable order by limiting the number ofVietnamese and Cambodian Americans that they hired."

In a separate lawsuit, in Pinellas County, Fla., a retiredengineer says BP needed his help to cap its broken wellhead, butnever paid him the $2 million it promised.

Forty-one named Vietnamese- and Cambodian-American plaintiffsfiled the class action in New Orleans.

They claim that before the April 20, 2010 explosion of theDeepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 and set off the worstenvironmental disaster in U.S. history, "the Gulf Coast seafoodindustry was a vibrant and lucrative business employing more than213,000 people and producing more than $10.5 billion to the localeconomy. The force behind this vibrant industry was the more than13,000 commercial fishing vessels in the Gulf."

The class claims that "according to a study performed by Dr. DavidD. Burrage, Extension Professor of Marine Resources at MississippiState University, one-third of the boats with Gulf of Mexicofederal shrimp permits, and over one-half of the boats actuallyfishing, belonged to Vietnamese-Americans. Vietnamese-Americansoperated 62 percent of all Mississippi licenses for vessels over45 feet, 75 percent of all Louisiana licenses for vessels over 50feet, and 65 percent of Alabama licenses for vessels over 45 feet.This number does not include a smaller, but significant percentagebelonging to Cambodian-Americans."

The class claims that "the oil spill devastated the commercialfishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico, causing suffering andfinancial burdens to hundreds of thousands of people, especiallyto commercial fishermen. Over half of all active commercialfishermen affected by the BP oil spill were Asians of theVietnamese and Cambodian origin."

BP set up a Vessels of Opportunity (V.o.O) program, through whichit hired the fishermen to use their boats in the clean-up. Boat-owners who signed up have filed numerous lawsuits against BP,claiming it did not live up to its promises, including paying themat all after putting them on call, or decontaminating their boats.

BP hired DRC Emergency Services and Danos and Curole MarineContractors to manage the Vessels of Opportunity program,according to the class action.

The complaint states that "even though over half of all activecommercial fishermen affected by the BP Oil Spill were Vietnameseand Cambodian Americans, less than 10 percent of all the vesselshired for the V.o.O program were owned by Vietnamese and CambodianAmericans. It is estimated that of the 5,000 marine vesselshired, only around 350 vessels belonged to Vietnamese andCambodian Americans."

The class claims this was directly attributable to BP'sdiscrimination.

"During the implementation of the V.o.O. program, BP sent oute-mail messages to DRC Emergency Services LLC and Danos and CuroleMarine Contractors LLC that specifically demanded that they nothire vessels owned by Vietnamese and Cambodian Americans," thecomplaint states.

"Based on information and belief, DRC Emergency Services LLC andDanos and Curole Marine Contractors colluded in this despicableorder by limiting the number of Vietnamese and Cambodian Americansthat they hired."

The class claims that about 4,000 Vietnamese- and Cambodian-Americans were affected by the discrimination.

They seek damages for civil rights violations and racialdiscrimination in employment. They are represented by Ryan Beasleyof Harvey, La.

In Pinellas County Court, Florida, retired engineer JosephKaminski claims BP needed his help to cap its broken wellhead butnever paid him for it.

Mr. Kaminski's attorney, Brian Donovan, issued a press statementannouncing the lawsuit. In it, he says that Mr. Kaminski is theformer technical director for the Honeywell Space Systems Divisionin Clearwater, Fla., where the complaint was filed.

From 1990 to 1999, "Kaminski was responsible for the design andsystem integration of the Honeywell space computer into NASA's EOS(TERRA) satellite, the design of the Honeywell A2100 spacecraftcomputer product line, the design of the NASA Near Earth AsteroidRendezvous ('NEAR') mission computers, and the design of the NASAFORTE mission computer. Suffice it to say, Mr. Kaminski is not'Joe the Plumber,'" Mr. Donovan said in the statement.

According to the complaint, Mr. Kaminski called BP 21 days intothe oil spill, and "offer(ed) to assist BP to control the sourceof the oil spill resulting from the blowout."

The complaint continues: "During this initial telephoneconversation, plaintiff Kaminski briefly explains to BP technicalsupport team representatives how his insertion pipe design can beused to collect the oil flowing from the well. PlaintiffKaminski's idea is to insert a smaller pipe into the broken pipepast the break and inflate sealing rings. A technical supportteam representative is so impressed with the solution that herequests plaintiff Kaminski's email address in order to forwardhim a form to fill out and return to the Horizon Support Team('HST')."

The next day, May 12, 2010, Mr. Kaminski "emails the solution toHST using the insertion pipe to collect oil," as he had explainedon the telephone the day before, according to the complaint.

He sent another e-mail on May 13: "In this email, plaintiffKaminski tells HST that he wants at least $2 million for hisassistance, ideas and/or designs if they use them. PlaintiffKaminski also explains to HST why the BP-designed 'Top Hat' willnot work," the complaint states.

Mr. Kaminski claims that all correspondence from May 13 onwardmade it clear that he expected to be paid $2 million, and that BPwas prepared to pay $2 million for his assistance. He says thiswas made clear in communications with attorney Elizabeth Hittos,legislative counsel for U.S. Congressman Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., inWashington, D.C.

"Plaintiff Kaminski conceived, invented, and designed the novel,unique, and concrete Insertion pipe idea," the complaint states."Defendants, both directly and indirectly via Attorney ElizabethHittos, requested the use of plaintiff Kaminski's insertion pipeinvention, idea, and design, and the ongoing engineering servicesof plaintiff Kaminski, and have knowingly and voluntarily acceptedtheir substantial benefits. The insertion pipe idea was submittedby plaintiff Kaminski to defendants with the understanding andexpectation, fully and clearly understood by defendants andattorney Hittos, that plaintiff Kaminski would be reasonablycompensated in the amount of 'at least two million U.S. dollars'for its use by defendants. Defendants did in fact use plaintiffKaminski's precise insertion pipe idea and design. Defendants havefailed to pay plaintiff Kaminski any part of the reasonable valueof his insertion pipe invention, idea, and design, and ongoingengineering services."

Mr. Kaminski claims he also "conceived, invented and designed thenovel, unique, and concrete 'Top Hat' with thermal lifting actionidea."

Mr. Kaminski claims BP could not have capped the will withoutusing his novel ideas.

BP faces fines under the Clean Water Act for every barrel of oilspilled. Mr. Kaminski claims that had it not been for his help,BP would face even greater fines.

If BP is found guilty of gross negligence in the spill and isassessed the maximum fine per barrel spilled ($4,300 times 4.9million barrels), it will face $21 billion in penalties.

Mr. Kaminski seeks damages for unjust enrichment.

He is represented by Brian Donovan of Tampa.

The only defendants in his complaint are BP Exploration &Production and BP America Production Co.

BP: Dolphins Near Deepwater Horizon Rig Suffer Health Problems--------------------------------------------------------------Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a studyof dolphins living near the site of the Deepwater Horizon rigshows that marine mammals have serious health problems from theoil spill, and a second study links the disaster to the death ofonce-vibrant Gulf coral reefs.

In a report last week that calls dolphin strandings in theNorthern Gulf "unprecedented," the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration said many dolphins who live near thesite of the Deepwater Horizon are underweight, anemic and sufferfrom liver and kidney disease. Nearly half also have abnormallylow levels of hormones that help with stress response, metabolismand immune function, the study found.

The NOAA began the study in 2011 to chart the effects of the BPoil spill.

According to NOAA data, 675 dolphins have been stranded sinceFebruary 2010 -- two months before the oil spill.

The report calls the strandings "significantly higher thannormal," and says that under normal circumstances roughly 74dolphins strand a year in the Northern Gulf.

In Louisiana alone, the average annual number of dolphinstrandings from 2002-2009 was just 20.

Yet "2011 had 159 strandings in Louisiana, almost 8 times the2002-2009 historical average," according to the report.

"These increased strandings are part of an Unusual Mortality Eventfor the entire northern Gulf which includes all dolphin and whalestrandings between the Panhandle of Florida and theLouisiana/Texas border," the NOAA report states. "Alabama,Mississippi and Louisiana stranding rates have been higher thanhistoric levels since the spill occurred and continue to be highin 2012."

While most stranded dolphins have been found dead, scientists havefound and studied 32 live dolphins living in Barataria Bay, whichis a few miles from the site where the Deepwater Horizon explodedand sank on April 20, 2010, killing 11 and sending nearly 5million barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

The report states that the "dolphins' symptoms are consistent withthose seen in other mammals exposed to oil, but the study is notyet complete. Assessment efforts continue in Barataria Bay and inother coastal areas of Louisiana and Mississippi. A final reportof study results for the Barataria Bay dolphins is expected in thenext six months. Final results for other areas will take longer,because new samples are still being collected."

And though BP and the Coast Guard declared Barataria Bay cleanedof oil, photos taken in March and published in the Times-Picayuneshow new sheens of Macondo well oil in the wetlands.

"'These are places where we absolutely need long-termmonitoring,'" Olivia Watkins, a spokeswoman for the LouisianaCoastal Protection and Restoration Authority, told the Times-Picayune in an e-mail describing the Barataria Bay photos.

Ms. Watkins told the paper that warm weather is causing oil tobubble up in the areas that had been deemed cleaned.

When cleanup efforts stopped last fall, the Coast Guard promisedto act promptly to any new oil sightings. So far neither theCoast Guard nor BP has responded to the new oil.

A second study charting the "unprecedented" effects of the oilspill focused on coral colonies. The study was funded by theBureau of Ocean Energy Management and the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration and was published last week in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study focuses on coral colonies less than a mile southwest ofthe Macondo well.

Scientists found the "colonies presented widespread signs ofstress, including varying degrees of tissue loss, scleriteenlargement, excess mucous production, bleached commensalophiuroids, and covering by brown flocculent material (floc)."The report states that "analysis of hopanoid petroleum biomarkersisolated from the floc provides strong evidence that this materialcontained oil from the Macondo well. The presence of recentlydamaged and deceased corals beneath the path of a previouslydocumented plume emanating from the Macondo well providescompelling evidence that the oil impacted deep-water ecosystems.Our findings underscore the unprecedented nature of the spill interms of its magnitude, release at depth, and impact to deep-waterecosystems."

The report states that while this particular coral colony appearsto be the only one of its kind affected by the spill so far, sealife is slow-moving and effects of the oil on other colonies maystill be unseen.

"Life in deep-water coral ecosystems is known to operate at a slowpace," the report states. "Consequently it is too early to fullyevaluate the footprint and long-term effects of acute and subacuteexposure to potential waterborne contaminants resulting from theDeepwater Horizon oil spill."

Also last week, a resident of Waveland, Miss., a coastal communitynot far from the Deepwater Horizon site, told Courthouse News he'sfed up with media denial of the continuing damage from the oilspill.

Charles Taylor said he's sent photos of beached, oily sea turtlesto local TV but the station is "reporting hardly anything aboutwhat is really going on" along the Gulf beaches, and deniedreceiving his photos.

Charles Taylor, who told Courthouse News a year ago that oily seaturtles washing ashore were rotting on the beach, said last weekthat he sent a local news station an e-mail with photos of foursea turtles he found in a single day. Mr. Taylor said the stationclaimed not to have received them, or misplaced them, Mr. Taylorsaid, so he sent them a letter.

"I am resending you these pictures again of the dead turtles inWaveland that you still claim to know nothing about," the letterstates.

"The first was found in Waveland, just west of the VeteransMemorial Pier. It is the one that is upside down and showsvisible signs of internal bleeding and hemorrhaging, which isconsistent with the turtle deaths immediately following the BP oilspill.

"The second, third and fourth turtles were all found within 100yards of each other just west of the Clermont Harbor Pier near theSilver Slipper Casino.

"I have no way of proving that these turtles were killed by BP'soil or dispersant mixtures, but it seems funny that any news wesee and try to report that might cast a bad light on BP simplydoes not get reported. It has gone on for a long time. About aslong as those BP propaganda commercials you run on your stationtrying to tell us that everything is OK on the Coast, when infact, the opposite is true. You must remember that in the nearfuture, that BP money will run out and you will be left withnothing but your viewing audience to support you."

Mr. Taylor told Courthouse News a year ago that he had to quit hisjob because he was sick with symptoms he attributed to the oilspill.

Congress last week passed a stopgap 3-month transportation billthat does not include a provision to send 80 percent of CleanWater Act fines from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill to GulfStates.

The provision, packaged as the Restore Act, would have directedmoney recovered in fines to help restore the Gulf Coast. Withoutthe provision, the money will go into the federal oil spill trustfund, to be used on anything oil spill-related, but notnecessarily connected with the Gulf Coast.

The basic fine BP will face under the Clean Water Act is $1,100per barrel of oil. If the court finds gross negligence, however,that penalty could be as high as $4,300 per barrel of oil, or $21billion, using the government's estimate of 4.9 million spilledbarrels.

BRINKER RESTAURANT: Court to Rule on Meal Break Suit in April-------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Jennings, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports thatthe California Supreme Court is expected to rule in mid April on alandmark case about meal and rest breaks that could have asignificant impact on all employers in the state.

Restaurant operators across the country who operate in Californiahope the long-awaited ruling, which is expected by April 12, willclarify what many see as ambiguous state laws regarding meal andrest breaks.

"For more than a decade, California employers have been left toguess what their legal obligation is," under the state's meal- andrest-break regulations, said attorney Julie Dunne --jdunne@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson in San Diego.

Restaurant companies have been sued often, spending millions onlegal battles and settlements, she noted. "This case isanticipated to finally offer some clarity . . . and it shouldbring a significant reduction in the lawsuits."

A key question before the state Supreme Court is whether employersmust ensure meal breaks for employees, or simply make themavailable. The court is also expected to determine whether suchcases can be filed as class actions.

The case, Brinker v. Superior Court, stems from a lawsuit filed in2004 against Chili's parent Brinker International. The originallawsuit, Hohnbaum v. Brinker Restaurant Corp., was filed by fiveemployees who claimed the company illegally denied them mealbreaks for every five hours worked, as required by California law.

The complaint was later certified as a class-action lawsuit thatwas estimated to include potentially up to 63,000 current andformer employees.

Brinker officials have declined to comment on the pending case,but attorneys for Dallas-based Brinker have argued that mealperiods need only be provided, allowing workers the right to passon their breaks if they choose.

How a manager handled a break period should also be decided on anindividual basis, the company's attorneys argued, not as a classaction.

Timing of the break period is of particular interest torestaurants, as servers may not want to take a mandated 30-minutemeal break if it means missing out on a tip.

Ms. Dunne said the Supreme Court could issue a decision on aprospective basis, which essentially would hold employers harmlessfor actions in the past, when the regulations were consideredunclear.

For example, if the court decides that employers must ensure thatmeal and rest periods are taken at a certain time within the workday, the decision could apply from this point forward. Currentcases in trial court would essentially be nullified becauseactions occurred before the law had been clarified.

CALUMET, IL: Sued for Employees' Unlawful Termination and Demotion------------------------------------------------------------------Jay Embry and all similarly situated employees of the City ofCalumet City, v. The City of Calumet City, Illinois, a unit oflocal Government, and Michelle Qualkinbush, in her individualcapacity, George Vallis, in his individual capacity, NickManousopoulos, in his individual capacity, and Roger Munda, in hisindividual capacity, Brian Wilson, in his individual capacity,Edward Gonzalez, in his individual capacity, Case No. 2012-CH-10023 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 20, 2012) alleges that thePlaintiff and other similarly situated employees were damaged as aresult of being reassigned, demoted or terminated without cause,in violation of the Illinois Constitution and laws.

The Plaintiff seeks redress for actions taken against him by theDefendants related to his exercise of his rights under theIllinois Constitution with respect to speech and association, fordeclaratory relief and a permanent injunction. Mr. Embrey allegesthat the Individual Defendants, except for City Mayor Ms.Qualkinbush, terminated, demoted and transferred employees,including the Plaintiff and Class Members, based on the employees'political allegiance to Ms. Qualkinbush and not on the basis ofmerit, budget or performance.

Mr. Embrey is the former Commissioner of Public Works of CalumetCity and a resident of Cook County, Illinois. He was hired as aforeman for the Public Works Department of the City beginning inJune 1998, and in June 2007, he was promoted to the headmanagement position of Commissioner of Public Works. Prior tobeing promoted the Plaintiff was a union member.

Calumet City, Illinois, is a municipal corporation incorporatedunder the laws of the State of Illinois pursuant to the IllinoisMunicipal Code. Ms. Qualkinbush is the Mayor of Calumet City.Mr. Vallis is the Director of Personnel and Human Resources forthe City, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and is a finalpolicy maker. Mr. Gonzalez is the Alderman of the 1st Ward of theCity, while Mr. Wilson was the Alderman of the 4th Ward of theCity. Mr. Munda was the Alderman of the 5th Ward of the City,while Mr. Manousopoulos was the Alderman of the 6th Ward of City.

CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Still Defends "Fulghum" Suit in Kansas--------------------------------------------------------------A subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc. continues to defend a classaction lawsuit pending in Kansas, according to the Company'sFebruary 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,filed on December 28, 2007, in the United States District Courtfor the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putativeclass action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certainmodifications in retiree benefits programs relating to lifeinsurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which,at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimatedfuture expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300million). Defendants include the Company's subsidiary, EmbarqCorporation, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee BenefitsCommittee and the individual plan administrator of certain of itsbenefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel andcertain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class oncertain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification asto other claims. Embarq and other defendants continue tovigorously contest these claims and charges.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, relatedlawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarqis not named a defendant in the lawsuit. In Abbott, approximately1,800 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connectionwith the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in theFulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the classthat was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vestedbenefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar tothe Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on whichthe Fulghum court denied class certification.

The Company says it has not accrued a liability for these mattersas it is premature to determine whether an accrual is warrantedand, if so, a reasonable estimate of probable liability.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink --http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The companyprovides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services toconsumers and businesses across the country. It also offersadvanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands. In addition, the companyprovides data, voice and managed services to enterprise,government and wholesale customers in local, national and selectinternational markets through its high-quality advanced fiberoptic network and multiple data centers.

CENTURYLINK INC: Qwest Negotiates Deals in Rights-of-Way Suits--------------------------------------------------------------Parties in class action lawsuits involving a CenturyLink, Inc.subsidiary are now engaged in negotiating and finalizingsettlements on a state-by-state basis for unresolved claimsrelating to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certainrights-of-way, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2011.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation offiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against theCompany's subsidiary, Qwest Communications International Inc., onbehalf of landowners on various dates and in various courts inAlabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state courtcase), Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey,New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Forthe most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right toinstall its fiber-optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. Thecomplaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as aneasement that did not include the right to permit the Company toinstall its fiber-optic cable in the right-of-way without thePlaintiffs' consent. Most of the actions purport to be brought onbehalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs' respectivestates, although two of the currently pending actions purport tobe brought on behalf of multi-state classes. Specifically, theIllinois state court action purports to be on behalf of landownersin Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohioand Wisconsin, and the Indiana state court action purports to beon behalf of a national class of landowners. In general, thecomplaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjustenrichment, as well as punitive damages.

On July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusettsentered an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all ofthe actions, except the action pending in Tennessee. OnSeptember 10, 2009, the court denied final approval of thesettlement on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.On December 9, 2009, the court issued a revised ruling that, amongother things, denied a motion for approval as moot and dismissedthe matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The partiesare now engaged in negotiating and finalizing settlements on astate-by-state basis, and have filed and received final approvalof settlements in Alabama and Illinois federal court, and inTennessee state court. Final approval also has been granted infederal court actions in Idaho and North Dakota, to which Qwest isnot a party.

The Company says it has accrued an amount that it believes isprobable for these matters; however, the amount is not material toits financial statements.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink --http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest telecommunications company in the United States. The companyprovides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services toconsumers and businesses across the country. It also offersadvanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands. In addition, the companyprovides data, voice and managed services to enterprise,government and wholesale customers in local, national and selectinternational markets through its high-quality advanced fiberoptic network and multiple data centers.

Instead, the lawsuit in an Illinois federal court claims that theproduct undergoes extensive processing, and is dependent uponadded aroma and flavoring in a way not found in nature. Theplaintiff, a consumer, accuses Coca-Cola of fraud, and seeks classaction status.

"This lawsuit has nothing to do with misleading consumers andeverything to do with lining class action lawyers' pockets,"Ms. Stribling said. "It is a meritless case against which we willvigorously defend ourselves."

Lawsuits against food and beverage companies over allegedmisleading marketing have drawn more attention, with sometimesdubious results for the plaintiffs.

A suit accusing Taco Bell of misrepresenting the amount of beef inits products received national headlines last year. But Taco Bellvehemently disputed the claims, which were soon voluntarilywithdrawn by the plaintiff.

The latest lawsuit said that chemically engineered "flavor packs"are added to Simply Orange, in order to mimic the flavor ofnatural orange juice. Consumers are willing to pay a premiumprice for Simply Orange, due in part to their false belief in thefreshness of the product, the lawsuit said.

"Coca-Cola misrepresented that Simply Orange was 100% pure andnatural orange juice when in fact it was not," the lawsuit said.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois isRandall Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, v. The Coca-Cola Company, 12-cv-02391.

James Brady represents a class of unlicensed accountants seekingovertime from Deloitte. Companies in California must pay overtimeto employees who work more than 40 hours a week, unless thoseworkers meet exemptions for professionals, executives oradministrators.

Though the Northern District of California previously certifiedthe class, the 9th Circuit stayed the ruling while it considered asimilar overtime case against PricewaterhouseCoopers.

In Campbell v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the federal appeals courtsaid unlicensed accountants were ineligible for the professionalexemption.

After the 9th Circuit lifted its stay against the Deloitteauditors, Deloitte moved to decertify.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted the motion last week,finding that the auditors cannot exhibit a common thread amongclass members.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that commonissues predominate," Judge Illston wrote. "The voluminous andconflicting evidence in the form of class member declarations anddeposition testimony shows wide variation in the job duties andwork experiences of class member, and plaintiffs have not shownthat this inquiry is amenable to common proof."

Judge Illston disagreed that unlicensed accountants do not fulfillthe requirements of exemption under California certification laws.

"The court concludes that plaintiffs have not shown that therequirements of Rule23(b)(3) are met," she wrote. "Although theremay be some common questions of law or fact, plaintiffs have notdemonstrated that common questions of law or fact predominate andthat a class action is a superior method of adjudication."

E*TRADE SECURITIES: Class Action Over Inactivity Fees Tossed------------------------------------------------------------Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that E*TradeSecurities is not liable for charging inactivity fees, a federaljudge ruled, rejecting the claims of a class action.

Lead plaintiffs Joseph Roling and Alexander Landvater had claimedthat the online stock brokerage charged and collected surprisequarterly fees, also called account-maintenance or account-servicefees. The investors apparently did not meet the exemptioncriteria for customers who maintained a "certain minimum balance"or "executed a certain number of trades."

E*Trade discontinued the fees, which ranged from $25 to $40, in2010.

Mr. Roling was charged inactivity fees beginning in 2004,Landvater incurred the charges in 2006. Both men argued, however,that E*Trade could not charge such fees because they were notproperly laid out in their "brokerage customer agreements."

"Even if the BCAs allowed E*Trade to charge an inactivity fee, adocument available on E*Trade's Web site -- known in thislitigation as the Brown Co. Addendum -- actually stated that noinactivity fees would be charged," according to the San Franciscocourt's summary of the claims.

E*Trade countered that the brokerage customer agreements didinclude reference to the fees, "stating that, if the account isinactive, then E*Trade 'may charge additional fees' and that'[a]ccount maintenance fees are described in the schedule of feeson the E*Trade Securities website," the 19-page ruling states.

In a motion for summary judgment, the company said Messrs. Rolingand Landvater had waived their right to challenge the fees bycontinuing to perform under the brokerage customer agreements.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen sided with E*Trade on Tuesday."There seems to be no dispute that waiver is an affirmativedefense," he wrote.

"Because the court has granted summary judgment to E*Trade basedon waiver, plaintiffs' individual claims have been disposed of intheir entirety," he added. "There are no other individualplaintiffs in this case; thus, there is no one who can proceedwith the class claim."

The parties must still attend a status conference on April 13 todiscuss future litigation, however, because E*Trade may havecharged inactivity fees without first posting a schedule on itsWeb site in 2005, the court found.

ECOLAB INC: Nalco Continues to Defends Suits Over COREXIT---------------------------------------------------------An Ecolab Inc. subsidiary continues to defend itself from classaction lawsuits over the COREXIT dispersant, which was suppliedfor use in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to theCompany's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2011.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the DeepwaterHorizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in the Gulf ofMexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on April20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one weekfollowing the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under theauthorization of the responding federal agencies, formallyrequested the Company's indirect subsidiary, Nalco Company, tosupply large quantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil dispersantproduct listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan ProductSchedule. Nalco Company responded immediately by providingavailable COREXIT and increasing production to supply the productto BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and directed byagencies of the federal government. Prior to the incident, Nalcoand its subsidiaries had not provided products or services orotherwise had any involvement with the Deepwater Horizon platform.On July 15, 2010, BP announced that it had capped the leakingwell, and the application of dispersants by the responding partiesceased shortly thereafter.

Nalco Company, is a defendant in five putative class actionlawsuits relating to the use of its COREXIT dispersant in the Gulfof Mexico in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Theactions, as currently pleaded, allege several causes of action,including negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiffs inthese actions seek, among other things, compensatory and punitivedamages, medical monitoring and attorneys' fees and costs. Inaddition, Nalco Company is a defendant in fifteen civil actionsbrought by individual plaintiffs that contains factual allegationssubstantially similar to the putative class action lawsuitsagainst Nalco Company, with the addition of claims of nuisance,trespass, battery, and strict liability for the physical injuriesand property damage allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs. Theplaintiffs in those actions seek, among other things, compensatoryand punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

All but two of these cases have been administratively transferredfor pre-trial purposes to a judge in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Louisiana with other relatedcases under In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" inthe Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D.La.) (the "MDL"). Pursuant to orders issued in the MDL, theclaims have been consolidated in several master complaints,including one naming Nalco and others who responded to the GulfOil Spill (known as the "B3 Bundle").

At this time, the Company says it does not know how many caseswill be in the B3 Bundle. A tentative list of cases includesfifteen cases (including some putative class actions) in the B3Bundle. Six cases previously filed against Nalco are not includedin the B3 Bundle. The two cases that have not been consolidatedin the MDL are pending in state court in Mississippi andLouisiana.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Motion to Dismiss NFL Players' Suit Denied-----------------------------------------------------------The Los Angeles Times reports that a federal judge on March 30denied a motion from Electronic Arts Inc. to dismiss a lawsuitfiled by former National Football League players alleging that thevideo game company misappropriated their likenesses in its MaddenNFL titles.

The ruling, by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of California, means that the case willproceed with its quest to obtain class-action status inrepresenting more than 6,000 former NFL players.

The named plaintiffs include Tony Davis, former running back forthe Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Vince Ferragamo, former quarterback forthe Los Angeles Rams (pictured above); and Billy Joe DuPree,former tight end for the Dallas Cowboys.

Mr. Davis and others allege that EA, based in Redwood City,Calif., used their likenesses in Madden games without compensatingthem. EA in the past has argued that it has the right to do sounder the 1st Amendment.

An EA spokesman said the company "respectfully disagrees" with theruling and is "confident we will prevail."

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 28,2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Entergy Corporation -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production andretail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates powerplants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generatingcapacity. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utilitycustomers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergyhas annual revenues of more than $11 billion and approximately15,000 employees.

ENTERGY CORP: Still Awaits Approval of Louisiana Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Several property owners have filed a class action lawsuit againstEntergy Corporation's subsidiaries, Entergy Louisiana LLC, EntergyServices Inc., Entergy Technology Holding Company (ETHC), andEntergy Technology Company, in state court in St. James Parish,Louisiana, purportedly on behalf of all property owners inLouisiana who have conveyed easements to the defendants. Thelawsuit alleges that Entergy installed fiber optic cable acrossthe plaintiffs' property without obtaining appropriate easements.The plaintiffs seek damages equal to the fair market value of thesurplus fiber optic cable capacity, including a share of theprofits made through use of the fiber optic cables, and punitivedamages. Entergy removed the case to federal court in NewOrleans; however, the district court remanded the case back tostate court. In February 2004, the state court entered an ordercertifying this matter as a class action. Entergy's appeals ofthis ruling were denied. The parties have entered into a termsheet establishing basic terms for a settlement that must beapproved by the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 28,2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Entergy Corporation -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production andretail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates powerplants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generatingcapacity. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utilitycustomers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergyhas annual revenues of more than $11 billion and approximately15,000 employees.

ENTERGY CORP: Still Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Motion---------------------------------------------------------------Entergy Corporation is still awaiting a court decision onplaintiffs' motion for class certification in a class actionlawsuit pending in Texas, according to the Company's February 28,2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court ofChambers County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of apurported class apparently of the Texas retail customers ofEntergy Gulf States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electricpower from January 1, 1994, to the present. The named defendantsinclude Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services Inc., Entergy PowerInc., Entergy Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas Inc.Entergy Gulf States, Inc. was not a named defendant, but isalleged to be a co-conspirator. The court granted the request ofEntergy Gulf States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protectits interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gougingaccounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situatedutility customers higher priced power generated by the defendantswhile rejecting and/or reselling to off-system utilities lessexpensive power offered and/or purchased from off-system suppliersand/or generated by the Entergy system. In particular, plaintiffsallege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulatethe dispatch of generation so that power is purchased fromaffiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas werecharged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices forpower. Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplarydamages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damagesin a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in presentvalue, under various scenarios. The Entergy defendants havetendered expert reports challenging the assumptions,methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs' expert reports.

The case is pending in state district court, and a classcertification hearing was held in August 2011. The decision ofthe court on class certification is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SECfiling.

Entergy Corporation -- http://www.entergy.com/-- is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production andretail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates powerplants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generatingcapacity. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utilitycustomers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergyhas annual revenues of more than $11 billion and approximately15,000 employees.

In a ruling issued on March 28 as part of a pair of class-actionlawsuits, U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargeant saidlandowners retain their claim to the natural gas siphoned fromcoal seams if they've sold only the rights for that coal.

"Any party to the drilling units who owns the coal estate only,has no interest in the CBM (coalbed methane) or the revenuesgenerated by the production of the CBM," Judge Sargent wrote inthe ruling released on March 28.

The decision might allow landowners to bypass hauling every coalowner into court to determine gas ownership and instead gostraight to arguing for royalties they say are owed to them by EQTProduction Co., the defendant in both cases.

"This decision opens the way for over a thousand royalty owners inSouthwest Virginia to finally see justice done," said Don Barrett,one of several attorneys representing the landowners.

Spokesmen for the Pittsburgh, Penn.-based EQT could not be reachedon March 30.

At the heart of the lawsuits are royalty payments that state lawhas allowed to be withheld from landowners when energy companiessiphon coalbed methane and argue that ownership is in dispute. Italso applies to royalties put into escrow accounts in cases offorced pooling, where gas is pulled from underground despite alack of contract with the landowner.

The practices are allowed under the 1990 Virginia Gas Act, createdto allow business to drill first and determine ownership later, inthe courts. Ownership of coalbed methane first came into questionin the 1980s. Until then, the gas was deemed a deadly andexplosive nuisance, but new technology has allowed the gas to bewithdrawn from coal seams, and then processed for use.

With that new technology emerged the question of whether the gaswas part of the coal or a separate substance.

Judge Sargent's ruling relied on a 2004 Virginia Supreme Courtopinion concerning the Gas Act and a similar question on theownership of coalbed methane.

In that case, Harrison-Wyatt v. Ratliff, the state Supreme Courtalso distinguished the gas as separate from the coal it's foundin. The royalties fell to the landowner as long as they sold thecoal rights but not the gas or all mineral rights.

Still, energy companies and the Virginia Gas and Oil Board, whichissues drilling permits, argued that the ruling applied only tothe plaintiff in that particular case.

Judge Sargent noted in her ruling that the Supreme Court of Kansasin 2006 cited the Harrison-Wyatt case when deciding that theownership of coal does not include the ownership of CBM.

EQT had argued that every coal owner needed to be located andbrought to court for the case to continue.

But Mr. Barrett pointed out that EQT already submitted thedocumentation citing the coal, gas and landowners when the companyinitially applied for a drilling permit years ago.

Under Mr. Barrett's argument, there is no need to have the coalowners in court if they have no claim to the gas. Only the gasowners need to be present, he argued.

Judge Sargent agreed.

FIRST MIDWEST: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on itssubsidiary's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit relating tooverdraft fees, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2011.

In August 2011, the Company principal subsidiary, First MidwestBank (the "Bank"), was named in a purported class action lawsuitfiled in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf ofcertain of the Bank's customers who incurred overdraft fees. Thelawsuit is based on the Bank's practices pursuant to debit cardtransactions, and alleges, among other things, that thesepractices have resulted in customers being unfairly assessedoverdraft fees. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount ofdamages and other relief, including restitution.

The Company believes that the complaint contains significantinaccuracies and factual misstatements and that the Bank hasmeritorious defenses. As a result, the Bank intends to vigorouslydefend itself against the allegations in the lawsuit.

The Bank filed a motion to dismiss this claim in November 2011,and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2012.

FRITO-LAY: Faces Class Action Over Misbranded Food Products-----------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claimsthat Frito-Lay/Pepsico "misbrand" their potato chips byadvertising them as containing "0 grams Trans Fat" but neglectingto point out that they contain more than 13 grams of fat for every50 grams of chips.

A copy of the Complaint in Wilson v. Frito-Lay North America,Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01586 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

HUFFINGTON POST: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Bloggers' Class Action------------------------------------------------------------BusinessWeek reports that a federal judge in New York says thatthe Huffington Post and its parent company, AOL, don't have to paybloggers who provide content for the Web site.

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl dismissed a lawsuit that bloggersfiled last year, saying they were unjustly denied compensation fortheir work.

The bloggers were seeking class-action status for the lawsuit.The lawsuit was prompted by AOL Inc.'s $315 million purchase ofthe Huffington Post last year. The bloggers claimed that theWeb site unjustly profited from their work, promising onlyexposure.

In dismissing the suit, the judge says the bloggers knew from thestart that they wouldn't be paid and could have taken their workelsewhere.

IBM CORP: Consolidated "Health Net" Suit Dismissed in February--------------------------------------------------------------A consolidated class action lawsuit over International BusinessMachines Corporation's agreement with Health Net, Inc., wasdismissed in February 2012, according to the Company'sFebruary 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company was named as a co-defendant in numerous purportedclass actions filed on and after March 18, 2011, in federal andstate courts in California in connection with an informationtechnology outsourcing agreement between Health Net, Inc. and IBM.The matters were consolidated in the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of California, and plaintiffs filed aconsolidated complaint on July 15, 2011. The consolidatedcomplaint alleges that the company violated the CaliforniaConfidentiality of Medical Information Act in connection with harddrives that are unaccounted for at one of Health Net's datacenters in California; plaintiffs have been notified by Health Netthat certain of their personal information is believed to becontained on those hard drives. Plaintiffs seek damages, as wellas injunctive and declaratory relief. IBM has also received arequest for information regarding this matter from the CaliforniaAttorney General.

On January 12, 2012, the court granted IBM's motion to dismiss thecomplaint for lack of standing, and on February 22, the caseagainst IBM was dismissed.

According to the class action complaint filed against Jerome'sFurniture, the furniture store "did not have in place an immutabletimekeeping system to accurately record and pay PLAINTIFF andother CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for the actual number of hoursthese employees worked each day, including overtime hours." Thecomplaint also alleges that Jerome's "systematically, unlawfully,and unilaterally altered the hours recorded in timekeeping systemby the PLAINTIFF and the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS in orderto avoid paying these employees" the amount of overtime pay dueunder the California Labor Code. Specifically, the lawsuit claimsthat even though the employees "clocked out for a thirty (30)minute meal break . . . the employees were not at all timesprovided an off-duty meal break."

Moreover, the class action complaint filed against Jerome'sFurniture alleges that the employees receive non-discretionarybonuses which Jerome's failed to include in the regular rate ofpay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. The failure toinclude the bonus in the regular rate of pay for overtimepurposes, according to the complaint, "has resulted in asystematic underpayment of overtime compensation" to theemployees.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment lawfirm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investorsand consumers fight back against unfair business practices,including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair LaborStandards Act.

KIRBY CORP: Faces "Rescue Mission" Class Suit in New Jersey-----------------------------------------------------------Kirby Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in New Jerseycommenced by Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et al., accordingto the Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2011.

On January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Districtof New Jersey and styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et al.v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K-SeaTransportation Partners L.P. and current and former officers anddirectors of K-Sea were named defendants in a putative classaction complaint asserting that during the period of January 30,2009, to January 27, 2010, K-Sea allegedly failed to disclosecertain facts regarding K-Sea's operations and financialconditions, and asserting violations of Sections 10(b)(5) and20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5thereunder. Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatorydamages, attorneys fees and costs.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit andintends to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on theinformation available to the Company at this time. The Companydoes not expect the outcome of this matter to have a materialadverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however,there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of thismatter.

MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $85 Million--------------------------------------------------------------Medtronic, Inc. on March 30 announced that the company has reachedan agreement in principle to settle a previously disclosed federalsecurities class action. Under the settlement, the company willmake a payment of $85 million to resolve all of the class claims.

The action, initially filed in December, 2008 against the companyand certain current and former officers by the MinneapolisFirefighters Relief Association, had sought damages for allegedmisrepresentations and omissions by the Company during a periodprior to November, 2008. Under the settlement, Medtronicexplicitly denies that it made any misrepresentations or omissionsor that it otherwise engaged in any wrongdoing.

The proposed settlement is subject to completion of finaldocumentation and preliminary and final court approval. Medtronicexpects to record the settlement as a one-time charge in itsfourth fiscal quarter ending April 27, 2012.

In July 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its globalrestructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") thatwas initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacyMerck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses. ThisMerger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the coststructure of the combined company. As part of this latest phase,the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the timeof the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Companyworldwide.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough settled patentlitigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESILederle, Inc. ("Lederle"), respectively, relating to genericversions of K-DUR, Schering-Plough's long-acting potassiumchloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for whichLederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New DrugApplications ("ANDAs"). Following the commencement of anadministrative proceeding by the United States Federal TradeCommission (the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effectsfrom those settlements (which has been resolved in Schering-Plough's favor), putative class and non-class action lawsuits werefiled on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR againstSchering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated ina multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey. These lawsuits claimed violations offederal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutoryand common law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages.In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed theircase. In February 2009, a Special Master recommended that theDistrict Court dismiss the remaining lawsuits on summary judgmentand, in March 2010, the District Court adopted the recommendation,granted summary judgment to the defendants, and dismissed thematter in its entirety. Plaintiffs have appealed this decision tothe Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants are simultaneouslyappealing a December 2008 decision by the District Court tocertify certain direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a classaction.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Pending Vioxx Liability Suits-------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend remaining lawsuits arisingfrom the use or purchase of its Vioxx product, which was withdrawnfrom the market in 2004, according to the Company's February 28,2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On September 30, 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx, itsarthritis and acute pain medication, from the market worldwide.Although Merck has settled the major portion of the U.S. ProductLiability litigation, the Company still faces material litigationarising from the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx.

There are pending in various U.S. courts putative class actionspurportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users ofVioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss. In theVioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain.In June 2010, Merck moved to strike the class claims or forjudgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, whichincludes the class action cases, and briefing on that motion wascompleted in September 2010. The Vioxx MDL court heard oralargument on Merck's motion in October 2010 and took it underadvisement.

In 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouriplaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relatingto Vioxx. Trial is scheduled to begin on May 21, 2012. Inaddition, in Indiana, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a classof Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the CircuitCourt of Marion County, Indiana. In April 2010, a Kentucky statecourt denied Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified aclass of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx. The trial court subsequentlyentered an amended class certification order on January 27, 2011.Merck appealed that order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals and onFebruary 10, 2012, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed thetrial court's amended class certification order and deniedcertification of a class of Kentucky plaintiffs.

Merck has also been named as a defendant in several lawsuitsbrought by, or on behalf of, government entities. Eleven of theselawsuits are being brought by state Attorneys General and one hasbeen brought on behalf of a county. All of these actions are inthe Vioxx MDL proceeding. These actions allege that Merckmisrepresented the safety of Vioxx. All but one of these lawsuitsseek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-fundedhealth care programs, such as Medicaid, along with other relief,such as penalties and attorneys' fees. An action brought by theAttorney General of Kentucky seeks only penalties for allegedConsumer Fraud Act violations. Judge Fallon remanded the Kentuckycase to state court on January 3, 2012. Merck is appealing thatdecision. The lawsuit brought by the county is a putative classaction filed by Santa Clara County, California on behalf of allsimilarly situated California counties. Merck moved for judgmenton the pleadings in the case brought by Santa Clara County inSeptember 2011, and the court heard oral argument on the motion onJanuary 18, 2012. In addition, Merck moved to dismiss the casebrought by the Attorney General of Oklahoma in December 2010.

In March 2010, Judge Fallon partially granted and partially deniedMerck's motion for summary judgment in the Louisiana AttorneyGeneral case. A trial on the remaining claims before Judge Fallonwas completed in April 2010 and Judge Fallon found in favor ofMerck in June 2010 dismissing the Louisiana Attorney General'sremaining claims with prejudice. The Louisiana Attorney Generalfiled a notice of appeal, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed theappeal without prejudice pursuant to its scheduling rules inOctober 2011 after the Louisiana Attorney General requested a stayof the appeal.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the VioxxProduct Liability Lawsuits, Vioxx Securities Lawsuits and VioxxForeign Lawsuits (collectively, the "Vioxx Lawsuits") and willvigorously defend against them. In view of the inherentdifficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, particularlywhere there are many claimants and the claimants seekindeterminate damages, the Company is unable to predict theoutcome of these matters and, at this time, cannot reasonablyestimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to theremaining Vioxx Lawsuits. The Company says it has established theVioxx Liability Reserve and a reserve with respect to a settlementagreement of lawsuits in Canada. The Company has established noother liability reserves with respect to the Vioxx Litigation.Unfavorable outcomes in the Vioxx Litigation could have a materialadverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity andresults of operations.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit Due April 10-----------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff's class certification motion in the fifth amendedconsolidated securities class action complaint in New Jersey mustbe filed by April 10, 2012, according to Merck & Co., Inc.'sFebruary 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2011.

In addition to the product liability lawsuits over the Company'sVioxx product, various putative class actions and individuallawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have beenfiled against Merck and various current and former officers anddirectors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx SecuritiesLawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S.District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge StanleyR. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. OnAugust 8, 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in partMerck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaintin the consolidated securities action. Among other things, theclaims based on statements made on or after the voluntarywithdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.On October 7, 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended ClassAction Complaint. Discovery is currently proceeding in accordancewith the court's scheduling order. Under the scheduling order,plaintiff's class certification motion must be filed by April 10,2012, and fact discovery must be completed by March 13, 2013.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreigninstitutional investors also are consolidated with the VioxxSecurities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiff's filed amendedcomplaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.Also in October 2011, a new individual securities lawsuit wasfiled in the District of New Jersey by several foreigninstitutional investors; that case is also consolidated with theVioxx Securities Lawsuits. On January 20, 2012, defendants filedmotions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the "ABPLawsuit"). By stipulation and order, defendants are not requiredto respond to the complaints in the remaining individualsecurities lawsuits until the resolution of any motions to dismissin the ABP Lawsuit.

The Company revealed that it has Directors and Officers insurancecoverage applicable to the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits withremaining stated upper limits of approximately $175 million. As aresult of the previously disclosed insurance arbitration,additional insurance coverage for these claims should also beavailable, if needed, under upper-level excess policies thatprovide coverage for a variety of risks. There are disputes withthe insurers about the availability of some or all of theCompany's insurance coverage for these claims and there are likelyto be additional disputes. The Company says the amounts actuallyrecovered under the policies may be less than the stated upperlimits.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the VioxxLawsuits and will vigorously defend against them. In view of theinherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation,particularly where there are many claimants and the claimants seekindeterminate damages, the Company is unable to predict theoutcome of these matters and, at this time, cannot reasonablyestimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to theremaining Vioxx Lawsuits. The Company says it has established theVioxx Liability Reserve and a reserve with respect to a settlementagreement of lawsuits in Canada. The Company has established noother liability reserves with respect to the Vioxx Litigation.Unfavorable outcomes in the Vioxx Litigation could have a materialadverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity andresults of operations.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vioxx Suits in Foreign Countries----------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself from class actionlawsuits in foreign countries over Vioxx, according to theCompany's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2011.

Vioxx Foreign Lawsuits

Merck has been named as a defendant in litigation relating toVioxx in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe and Israel(collectively, the "Vioxx Foreign Lawsuits").

Following trial of a representative action in 2009, a firstinstance judge of the Federal Court in Australia entered orders in2010 that dismissed all claims against Merck. With regard toMerck's Australian subsidiary, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) PtyLtd ("MSD Australia"), the court dismissed certain claims butawarded the applicant, whom the court found suffered a myocardialinfarction ("MI") after ingesting Vioxx for approximately 33months, AUD330,465 based on statutory claims that Vioxx was notfit for purpose or of merchantable quality, even though the courtrejected the applicant's claim that Merck and MSD Australia knewor ought to have known prior to the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxxin September 2004 that Vioxx materially increased the risk of MI.The court also determined which of its findings of fact and lawwere common to the claims of other group members whose individualclaims would proceed with reference to those findings. MSDAustralia appealed the adverse findings and the Full Federal Court(the "Full Court") heard the appeal and a cross-appeal in August2011.

In October 2011, the Full Court allowed MSD Australia's appeal andset aside the judgment in favor of the applicant and dismissed hisaction. The Full Court held that Vioxx was not proven to be thecause of the applicant's MI and that MSD Australia is not liableto the applicant for damages in negligence or under the formerTrade Practices Act. The Full Court also affirmed the firstinstance decision in favor of MSD Australia on the applicant'sstatutory defect claim, holding that MSD Australia's state of theart defense was proven based on the development of scientificknowledge over time. The effect of this decision upon the claimsof the remaining group members remains to be determined. Theapplicant is seeking leave to appeal the Full Court's judgment tothe High Court of Australia.

Canadian Class Action

On January 19, 2012, Merck announced that it had entered into anagreement (the "Canada Settlement Agreement") to resolve allclaims (including certain class actions and putative classactions) related to Vioxx in Canada. The agreement is pendingapproval by courts in Canada's provinces.

If the Canada Settlement Agreement is approved and specifiedconditions (including among others a right of Merck to terminateif there are opt-outs) are met, which conditions are set forth incertain Merck termination rights and accordingly may be waived byMerck, Merck would make payments aggregating from a minimum ofC$21,806,250 (approximately $21.5 million U.S. dollars at December31, 2011) up to a maximum of C$36,881,250 (approximately $36.3million U.S. dollars at December 31, 2011) (the "Canada SettlementAmount"). The exact Canada Settlement Amount will depend on thenumber of individuals who submit documented claims and aredetermined to meet certain threshold "Gates" relating to thealleged injury event and alleged usage of Vioxx. In addition topayments to eligible claimants who experienced a diagnosed MI,sudden cardiac death or diagnosed ischemic stroke, the settlementalso includes fixed payments of C$3,500,000 to provinces andterritories, C$6,000,000 towards class counsel fees andC$1,000,000 for administrative expenses involved in theimplementation of the Canada Settlement Agreement; should approvedlegal fees or administrative expenses exceed the specifiedamounts, any excess would be paid from the amount to be funded foreligible claimants and derivative claimants. The Company recordeda reserve in the fourth quarter of 2011 for this settlement.

The Canada Settlement Agreement provides that Merck denies allallegations, denies that any damages are payable and does notconcede or admit any liability. Merck will not make any payment,other than to pay notice dissemination costs and certain otheradministrative costs, unless and until approvals by courts in allCanada's provinces have been secured and all termination rightshave expired without Merck having terminated the Canada SettlementAgreement in its entirety. Merck also has certain rights toterminate the Canada Settlement Agreement in part, in relation toprovinces or territories other than Ontario or Quebec.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the VioxxProduct Liability Lawsuits, Vioxx Securities Lawsuits and VioxxForeign Lawsuits (collectively, the "Vioxx Lawsuits") and willvigorously defend against them. In view of the inherentdifficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, particularlywhere there are many claimants and the claimants seekindeterminate damages, the Company is unable to predict theoutcome of these matters and, at this time, cannot reasonablyestimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to theremaining Vioxx Lawsuits. The Company says it has established theVioxx Liability Reserve and a reserve with respect to the CanadaSettlement Agreement. The Company has established no otherliability reserves with respect to the Vioxx Litigation.Unfavorable outcomes in the Vioxx Litigation could have a materialadverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity andresults of operations.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin ERISA Class Suits---------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuitsbrought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974over Merck's Vytorin product, according to the Company'sFebruary 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In July 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its globalrestructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") thatwas initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacyMerck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses. ThisMerger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the coststructure of the combined company. As part of this latest phase,the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the timeof the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Companyworldwide.

In April 2008, a member of a Merck ERISA plan filed a putativeclass action lawsuit against Merck and certain of the Company'scurrent and former officers and directors alleging they breachedtheir fiduciary duties under ERISA. Since that time, there havebeen other similar ERISA lawsuits filed against Merck in theDistrict of New Jersey, and all of those lawsuits have beenconsolidated under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. VytorinERISA Litigation. A consolidated amended complaint was filed inFebruary 2009, and names as defendants Merck and various currentand former members of the Company's Board of Directors. Theplaintiffs allege that the ERISA plans' investment in Merck stockwas imprudent because Merck's earnings were dependent on thecommercial success of its cholesterol drug Vytorin and thatdefendants knew or should have known that the results of ascientific study would cause the medical community to turn to lessexpensive drugs for cholesterol management. In April 2009, Merckand the other defendants moved to dismiss this lawsuit on thegrounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for whichrelief can be granted. In September 2009, the court denieddefendants' motion to dismiss.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action ERISAlawsuit currently pending in the District of New Jersey, filed bya member of a Schering-Plough ERISA plan against Schering-Ploughand certain of its current and former officers and directors,alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, andunder the caption In re Schering-Plough Corp. ENHANCE ERISALitigation. The consolidated amended complaint was filed inOctober 2009 and names as defendants Schering-Plough, variousthen-current and former members of Schering-Plough's Board ofDirectors and then-current and former members of committees ofSchering-Plough's Board of Directors. In November 2009, theCompany and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss thislawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claimfor which relief can be granted. That motion was denied in June2010. On November 4, 2011, the parties reached an agreement inprinciple to settle the matter. On November 7, 2011, the partiesinformed the court that they would submit a motion for preliminaryapproval of the settlement on a class-wide basis. On November 14,2011, the court ordered the case dismissed without costs andwithout prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 60days, to seek to reopen the action if the settlement is notconsummated. On January 9, 2012, the court extended that 60-dayperiod by an additional 60 days.

The Company disclosed that it has Directors and Officers insurancecoverage applicable to the Vytorin shareholder lawsuits brought bylegacy Schering-Plough shareholders with stated upper limits ofapproximately $250 million. The Company has Fiduciary and otherinsurance for the Vytorin ERISA lawsuits with stated upper limitsof approximately $265 million. There are disputes with theinsurers about the availability of some or all of the Company'sinsurance coverage for these claims and there are likely to beadditional disputes. The Company says the amounts actuallyrecovered under the policies may be less than the stated limits.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Suits Over Fosamax Product-----------------------------------------------------------Discovery is ongoing in product liability lawsuits arising fromMerck & Co., Inc.'s Fosamax product, according to the Company'sFebruary 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the UnitedStates involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). Fosamax(alendronate sodium) is used for the treatment and prevention ofosteoporosis. As of December 31, 2011, approximately 2,345 cases,which include approximately 2,800 plaintiff groups, had been filedand were pending against Merck in either federal or state court,including one case which seeks class action certification, as wellas damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 1,180 ofthese actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that theyhave suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generallysubsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extractionor dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with theuse of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 1,165 ofthese actions generally allege that they sustained femur fracturesand/or other bone injuries in association with the use of Fosamax.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation(the "JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability casespending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred andconsolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax MDL")for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax MDL has beentransferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of New York. As a result of the JPML order,approximately 945 of the cases are before Judge Keenan. JudgeKeenan issued a Case Management Order (and various amendmentsthereto) which set forth a schedule governing the proceedingsfocused primarily upon resolving the class action certificationmotions in 2007 and completing fact discovery in an initial groupof 25 cases by October 1, 2008. In the first Fosamax MDL trial,Boles v. Merck, the Fosamax MDL court declared a mistrial becausethe eight person jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. TheBoles case was retried in June 2010 and resulted in a verdict infavor of the plaintiff in the amount of $8 million. Merck filedpost-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law or, in thealternative, a new trial. In October 2010, the court deniedMerck's post-trial motions but sua sponte ordered a remittiturreducing the verdict to $1.5 million. Plaintiff rejected theremittitur ordered by the court and requested a new trial ondamages, which is scheduled to take place on September 10, 2012.Merck intends to appeal the verdict in Boles after the new trialon damages has concluded.

In the next Fosamax MDL trial, Maley v. Merck, the jury in May2010 returned a unanimous verdict in Merck's favor. In February2010, Judge Keenan selected a new bellwether case, Judith Gravesv. Merck, to replace the Flemings v. Merck bellwether case, whichthe Fosamax MDL court dismissed when it granted summary judgmentin favor of Merck. In November 2010, the Second Circuit affirmedthe court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Merck in theFlemings case. In Graves, the jury returned a unanimous verdictin favor of Merck in November 2010. The jury in Secrest v. Merckreturned a unanimous verdict in favor of Merck in October 2011.

The next trial scheduled in the Fosamax MDL was Raber v. Merck,which was subsequently dismissed. In addition, in February 2011,Judge Keenan ordered that there will be two further bellwethertrials conducted in the Fosamax MDL: Spano v. Merck is scheduledto be tried on May 7, 2012; Jellema v. Merck was scheduled to betried on May 7, 2012, but was dismissed by the plaintiff. Areplacement case will be selected in the first quarter of 2012 andthat case will be tried beginning on November 13, 2012.

Outside the Fosamax MDL, a trial in Florida, Anderson v. Merck,was scheduled to begin in June 2010 but the Florida state courtpostponed the trial date and a new date has been set forJanuary 14, 2013. The trial ready date in Carballo v. Merck hasbeen continued from August 22, 2011, until April 30, 2012. TheWard v. Merck case is scheduled to be tried on June 11, 2012.

In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the AtlanticCounty Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of theFosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tortdesignation and centralized management before one judge in NewJersey. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court orderedthat all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arisingout of the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dentaland jaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seekingmedical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralizedmanagement purposes before Judge Carol E. Higbee in AtlanticCounty Superior Court. As of December 31, 2011, approximately 225ONJ cases were pending against Merck in Atlantic County, NewJersey.

In July 2009, Judge Higbee entered a Case Management Order (andvarious amendments thereto) setting forth a schedule thatcontemplates completing fact and expert discovery in an initialgroup of cases to be reviewed for trial. In February 2011, thejury in Rosenberg v. Merck, the first trial in the New Jerseycoordinated proceeding, returned a verdict in Merck's favor. Atrial in the Sessner v. Merck case commenced on February 27, 2012.The Flores v. Merck case was scheduled to be tried jointly withSessner v. Merck, but on February 27, 2012, Judge Higbee severedthe Flores case from the Sessner trial. The Flores trial will berescheduled.

In California, the parties are reviewing the claims of threeplaintiffs in the Carrie Smith, et al. v. Merck case and theclaims in Pedrojetti v. Merck. The cases of one or more of theseplaintiffs are expected to be tried in mid-2012.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax MDL litigation, the New Jerseycoordinated proceeding, and the remaining jurisdictions whereFosamax cases are pending.

The Company says it intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Dismissed Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits in November-----------------------------------------------------------------Class action lawsuits filed under the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act were dismissed in November 2011, according to Merck &Co., Inc.'s February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2011.

Various putative class actions had been filed in federal courtunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA")against Merck and certain current and former officers anddirectors (the "Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits"). Those cases wereconsolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of NewJersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. On August 16, 2011, theparties reached an agreement in principle in which Merck would pay$49.5 million to settle the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits. On November 29,2011, Judge Chesler granted final approval of the settlement anddismissed the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits with prejudice.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

MERCK & CO: Class Cert. Bid Pending in Vytorin Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Parties in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit overMerck & Co., Inc.'s Vytorin product are currently briefing leadplaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to theCompany's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2011.

In July 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its globalrestructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") thatwas initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacyMerck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses. ThisMerger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the coststructure of the combined company. As part of this latest phase,the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the timeof the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Companyworldwide.

In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class actionlawsuit in federal court which has been consolidated in theDistrict of New Jersey with another federal securities lawsuitunder the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin SecuritiesLitigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed inOctober 2008 and named as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering-PloughPharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of the Company's current andformer officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Merckdelayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinicaltrial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made falseand misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing thatonce the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales ofVytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer. InDecember 2008, Merck and the other defendants moved to dismissthis lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state aclaim for which relief can be granted. In September 2009, thecourt denied defendants' motion to dismiss. In June 2011, leadplaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further amend theconsolidated complaint, which was granted on February 7, 2012.The parties are currently briefing lead plaintiffs' motion forclass certification.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action securitieslawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by aSchering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its formerChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred Hassan,under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCESecurities Litigation. The amended consolidated complaint wasfiled in September 2008 and names as defendants Schering-Plough;Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; certain of the Company'scurrent and former officers and directors; and underwriters whoparticipated in an August 2007 public offering of Schering-Plough's common and preferred stock. In December 2008, Schering-Plough and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss thislawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claimfor which relief can be granted. In September 2009, the courtdenied defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties are currentlybriefing lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company disclosed that it has Directors and Officers insurancecoverage applicable to the Vytorin shareholder lawsuits brought bylegacy Schering-Plough shareholders with stated upper limits ofapproximately $250 million. There are disputes with the insurersabout the availability of some or all of the Company's insurancecoverage for these claims and there are likely to be additionaldisputes. The Company says the amounts actually recovered underthe policies may be less than the stated limits.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its prescriptionmedicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, andconsumer care products, which it markets directly and through itsjoint ventures. The Company's operations are principally managedon a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care andAlliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is thePharmaceutical segment.

METRO TRANSIT: Judge OKs Discrimination Class Action Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Pat Doyle, writing for Star Tribune, reports that black busdrivers for Metro Transit say their bosses have been manipulatingpassenger complaints for years to target them for discipline ordismissal.

Now a federal court has ordered the Metropolitan Council, whichruns the bus system, to overhaul its workplace procedures to avoiddiscrimination.

"If this doesn't substantially change the workplace, then justicehasn't been served," said U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank. Heapproved a settlement last week of a class action suitrepresenting 500 black drivers who alleged they were victims of alongstanding and deliberate pattern of discrimination. The judgesaid the deal avoided a lengthy and costly court battle over themerits of the claims with an uncertain outcome.

"We vigorously deny ever having tolerated discrimination," MetroTransit general manager Brian Lamb said on March 30.

The Met Council and its bus agency agreed to pay three of thedrivers and their lawyer $485,000 as well as change Metro Transitworkplace procedures.

Mr. Lamb said the bus system changed "our customer complainthandling process by implementing additional checks and balances.We believe these changes will ensure consistency to . . . all ofour employees, as well as our customers."

The changes include blocking supervisors from viewing records ofold customer complaints and tracking the resolution of newcomplaints by the race of the bus drivers for court monitoring.

In addition, the agreement calls for new guidelines for verifyingcustomer complaints and requires the agency to give driverswritten notice that they have a right to contact civil rightsofficers if they believe discipline is discriminatory.

The court has authority to monitor the deal for the next fiveyears.

The lawsuit was filed late last year along with the proposedsettlement, which the two sides negotiated for more than a year.

It alleged that an overwhelmingly white management treated blackdrivers unfairly in promotions, working conditions and discipline.

They "pursued trumped-up accusations" from passengers to denypromotions and retaliate against drivers who complained, thelawsuit said.

"My overall record . . . includes past complaints from unrulytransit customers," said driver Steven Duncan, who said he waswrongly fired earlier this year. "I believe the decision that ledto my discharge was not fair under the circumstances."

Mr. Lamb, in a message to employees, said, "It is at the heart ofour operation never to discriminate against those who board ourbuses and trains and this principle applies equally to workinghere."

"We should always be willing to hold a mirror up to ourselves andour practices and also invite scrutiny from those outside of ouragency," he said.

The payments of $20,000 to each of the three drivers and $425,000to their attorney, Kent Williams of Long Lake, cover their timeand expenses on the case and monitoring the settlement for thenext five years.

Whatever the merits of the allegations, Judge Frank said in courtthat "there is a shared perception that this has happened overtime to African-American drivers."

In agreeing to the changes, Met Council lawyer Susan Ellingstadtold the judge, "The Met Council is extremely concerned aboutperception."

But drivers told the judge the problem was more than perceptionand that they risked retaliation for filing the suit.

"We stuck our necks out," said Dujuan Williams, one of threedrivers named in the suit. He said some unnamed drivers said:"You guys are crazy. You're going to get fired."

The three drivers, employed for more than 30 years combined atMetro Transit, said they were held to a different standard thanwhite drivers.

Driver Sammie Lee Austin alleged in the suit that he toldsupervisors that he was threatened by a white person (not employedby Metro Transit) and asked to be switched to another route.

He said it was the kind of request approved for white drivers, butMetro Transit said no. Austin took days off at his expense "toallow the situation to cool down so that he could drive his routewithout fearing for his physical safety," the suit said.

Discipline was a major concern.

Former driver Terrance Williams said he suffered retaliation afterhe complained that management didn't preserve evidence favorableto him in a grievance proceeding.

In 2008, he was accused of striking a woman's walker with his bus.A supervisor's report written moments after the alleged incident"indicated there was no physical evidence of any contact," butMetro Transit fired him.

He was reinstated and learned that two white drivers who struckpedestrians in 2009 avoided any serious discipline, the suit said.He was later fired again.

Some black bus drivers balked at the settlement, telling JudgeFrank that the agency was getting off easy.

MONSANTO: Judge Grants Motion to Get Settlement Documents---------------------------------------------------------Kate White, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports thatlawyers representing some Nitro residents and the Monsantochemical company now find their interests aligned as they try toconvince the judge that a settlement reached in a huge class-action dioxin lawsuit is fair.

Some class members represented by Arlington, Va., lawyer ThomasUrban II have challenged the preliminary settlement, which wasreached in February after nearly 10 years of litigation. They saythe settlement isn't fair and reasonable and is a result of"collusion between the defendants and class counsel."

Circuit Judge Derek Swope entered a court order that directsattorneys for the class of plaintiffs and Monsanto to provide anexpansive list of information and a wide range of documentsexplaining how the settlement was reached.

Chemical giant Monsanto has agreed to pay up to $84 million formedical monitoring and $9 million to clean up 4,500 homes. Wordof the settlement emerged on the eve of an expected six-monthtrial in a case in which Nitro-area residents sought medicalmonitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what theyargued was a contaminated community.

For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant in Nitro churned outherbicides, rubber products and other chemicals. The plant'sproduction of the defoliant Agent Orange created dioxin as a toxicchemical byproduct.

Mr. Urban's group of plaintiffs, although class members, haveobjected to the settlement. They asked Judge Swope to allow themto obtain information about the settlement to bolster their claimsthat it should not be approved.

While Judge Swope granted the motion, he was careful to point outthat the information to be disclosed is to assist him in hisassessment of whether the settlement is fair and reasonable andwhether he should approve it.

A hearing on whether the settlement will be approved has beenscheduled for 9:00 a.m. June 18. Meanwhile, the information mustbe disclosed to Judge Swope no later than May 4.

"The Court does not mean to suggest that by granting thisdiscovery it has prejudged the fairness, adequacy andreasonableness of the proposed settlement. It is axiomatic to saythat the dynamics of compromise and settlement are giving upcertain rights to obtain other rights," Judge Swope wrote. "Justbecause certain rights are given up does not mean that theproposed settlement is automatically unfair, inadequate andunreasonable."

Also in the order, Judge Swope recognized that the challenge tothe settlement puts attorneys for the class and Monsanto in theawkward position of advocating the settlement terms when, by theirnature, they are different from the positions taken in thelitigation.

For example, while Mr. Calwell, lead attorney for the class,planned to ask the jury to approve medical monitoring for as manyas 80,000 present and former Nitro residents, the proposedsettlement agreement apparently estimates between 3,000 and 5,000people will qualify for the medical tests.

Mr. Calwell is faced with the task of convincing the judge thatthe drastic change in his clients' position for purposes of thesettlement is justified.

NEWGARD PARTNERS: Sued Over Unpaid Interest of Tenants' Deposit---------------------------------------------------------------Kenneth Hull, On behalf of himself and all those similarlysituated v. Henry Woo and Newgard Partners, Case No. 2012-CH-07207(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., February 28, 2012) asserts that theproperty at 6649 N. Newgard, in Chicago, a multi-unit residentialapartment building, is a non-owner-occupied property, andtherefore, subject to the terms and conditions of the ChicagoResidential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

The Defendants had a policy and practice of not paying annualinterest on tenants' security deposits by cash or by credit onrent, in violation of the CRLTO, Mr. Hull alleges. Instead, hecontends, the Defendants carried over the interest on the depositfrom year to year as an accounting credit "on paper". He addsthat in cases where there was a written lease, an increased amountof security deposit was indicated on each successive lease.

Mr. Hull began a written lease of the #3E premises of the Propertyon March 1, 2007, on a one-year basis for residential purposesfrom the Defendants. The terms of the Plaintiff's lease includeda monthly rent of $655, and a security deposit of $625 was paid byhim and forwarded to the Defendants by the previous landlord onMarch 1, 2007.

Henry Woo is the owner of the Property. Newgard is a managementcompany owned by Mr. Woo and which managed the property.

PATH INC: Accused of Obtaining User Information Without Consent---------------------------------------------------------------Oscar Hernandez, individually and on behalf of a class ofsimilarly situated individuals v. Path, Inc., a DelawareCorporation, Case No. 4:12-cv-01515 (N.D. Calif., March 26, 2012)is brought on behalf of those who were victims of unfair,deceptive, and unlawful business practices, wherein theirproperty, privacy, and security rights were violated by Path Inc.

The nature of this action includes a sequence of events whereinPath gained access to, and use of, Plaintiffs and Class Members'mobile devices, without authorization and consent, to obtain andstore contact address data, including personally identifiableinformation of minor children, that was within the contact addressbook, and bypassing the technical and code-based barriers intendedto limit access, Mr. Hernandez asserts. He contends that theDefendant perpetuated this fraudulent activity knowingly, and withthe intent to obtain data, including the mobile browsingactivities of its users.

Mr. Hernandez is a resident of Dallas County, Texas.

Path is a privately held Delaware corporation headquartered in SanFrancisco, California. Path hat operates an online business as asmartphone-based social network utilizing an application softwarethat performs specific functions for a web-based platform onmobile devices.

RON WILSON: Met with Investors Month Prior to Investigation-----------------------------------------------------------Mike Ellis, writing for Independent Mail, reports that Ron Wilsonmet with several Easley investors as recently as March 5 and took$277,819 from them to invest in silver, according to a lawsuitfiled last week.

Mr. Wilson is the subject of two lawsuits that ask for class-action status. He is also the subject of criminal investigationsfrom state and federal officials.

The state attorney general's office has accused Mr. Wilson, aformer Anderson County Council member, of running money frominvestors in 25 states through a Ponzi scheme. The attorneygeneral's office says Mr. Wilson's business has taken in $71million in investments since 2009.

The money likely went out as fast as it came in, said AssistantSenior Attorney General Tracy Meyers. Mr. Wilson had to payinvestors who wanted to cash out, and had to give them the highrates of return he had promised or they would turn him in, Mr.Meyers told a room full of investors on March 26.

One of the potential class-action lawsuits, filed late on March 26by Greenville attorney Bill Jordan on behalf of two Easleyinvestors and Foothills Custom Masonry in Liberty, names Wilsonand his Atlantic Bullion & Coin business along with AB&C VicePresident Jena Eison.

The lawsuit, like a similar one filed on March 26, asks that ajudge certify it as a class action.

The first class-action request, filed in the same Pickens Countycourthouse an hour earlier by Greenville law firm CovingtonPatrick, says hundreds and possibly more than a thousand investorscould have claims against Mr. Wilson and his business. TheCovington Patrick lawsuit names Mr. Wilson, his business,Tracy Atwell, Ed Atwell and Easley-based Professional PlanningInc. as defendants.

TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits---------------------------------------------------------Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend wage and hourclass action lawsuits pending in California, according to theCompany's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in two coordinated lawsuits in LosAngeles Superior Court alleging that its hospitals violatedcertain provisions of California's labor laws and applicable wageand hour regulations. The cases are: McDonough, et al. v. TenetHealthcare Corporation (which was filed June 2003) and Tien, etal. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (which was filed in May 2004).The plaintiffs seek back pay, statutory penalties, interest andattorneys' fees. The plaintiffs' requests for class certificationwere denied in the lower court, and the appellate court affirmedthe lower court's ruling. The California Supreme Court grantedthe plaintiffs' petition for review of the lower court's ruling,but has deferred further action in the matter pending its decisionin a similar case, which is expected in April 2012.

Based on available information, the Company believes at this timethat the ultimate resolution of the coordinated lawsuits will nothave a material adverse effect on its business, financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows.

TENET HEALTHCARE: To File "Dunn" Suit Settlement------------------------------------------------Tenet Healthcare Corporation disclosed in its February 28, 2012,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2011, that a final settlementagreement in the class action lawsuit captioned Dunn, et al. v.Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C., will be filed soon.

As previously reported, in March 2011, the Company agreed tosettle two previously reported class action lawsuits relating toalleged injuries suffered by persons at Memorial Medical Center,one of the Company's former New Orleans area hospitals, followingHurricane Katrina for a $25 million cash payment, which was fullyreserved at March 31, 2011. The court approved the finalsettlement agreement at a fairness hearing held in October 2011.

In January 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle tosettle for approximately $12 million a similar purported classaction lawsuit filed on behalf of persons allegedly injuredfollowing Hurricane Katrina at Lindy Boggs Medical Center (anotherone of the Company's former New Orleans area hospitals). Thesettlement, which will be covered in full by the Company's excessinsurance carrier, will be apportioned among the eligible classmembers who file a proof of claim once the Civil District Courtfor the Parish of Orleans certifies the class in that case --which is captioned Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C.(formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et al.

The Company anticipated the parties to execute a final settlementagreement by March 2012 and will submit it to the court forpreliminary approval shortly thereafter. Following the court'spreliminary approval, the settlement will be subject to a fairnesshearing with class members and final review by the court.

TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal From "Fitzhugh" Suit Dismissal Pending-------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuitin Ohio remains pending, Torchmark Corporation disclosed in itsFebruary 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, purported class action litigation was filedagainst Torchmark and its subsidiary, American Income LifeInsurance Company, in the District Court for the Northern Districtof Ohio (Fitzhugh v. American Income Life Insurance Company andTorchmark Corporation, Case No. 1:11-cv-00533). The plaintiff, aformerly independently contracted American Income agent, allegesthat American Income intentionally misclassified its agents asindependent contractors rather than as employees in order toescape minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair LaborStandards Act, as well as to avoid payroll taxes, workerscompensation premiums and other benefits required to be providedby employers. Monetary damages in the amount of unpaidcompensation plus liquidated damages and/or prejudgment interestas well as injunctive and/or declaratory relief is sought by theplaintiff on behalf of the purported class. On November 3, 2011,the Court granted American Income's motion to compel arbitrationand dismissed the case. Plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, marketsprimarily individual life and supplemental health insurance andannuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. Thecompany operates in two segments: insurance, which includes theinsurance product lines of life, health and annuities, andinvestments, which supports the product lines.

TORCHMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Kennedy" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Torchmark Corporation is awaiting a court decision on itssubsidiary's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending inArkansas, according to the Company's February 28, 2012, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2011.

Torchmark Corporation's subsidiary, United American InsuranceCompany, was named as defendant in purported class actionlitigation filed on May 31, 2011, in Cross County Arkansas CircuitCourt (Kennedy v. United American Insurance Company (Case # CV-2011-84-5). In the litigation, filed on behalf of a proposednationwide class of owners of certain limited hospital andsurgical expense benefit policies from United American, theplaintiff alleged that United American breached the policy byfailing and/or refusing to pay benefits for the total number ofdays an insured is confined to a hospital and by limiting paymentto the number of days for which there are incurred hospital roomcharges rather than also including benefits for services andsupplies. Claims for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, badfaith refusal to pay first party benefits, breach of the impliedduty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, and violation ofthe Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act were initiallyasserted. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief, restitutionand/or monetary damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneysfees. In September 2011, the plaintiff dismissed all causes ofaction, except for the breach of contract claim.

On November 14, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint basedupon the same facts asserting only breach of contract claims onbehalf of a purported nationwide restitution/monetary relief classor, in the first alternative, a purported multiple-staterestitution/monetary relief class or, in the second alternative, apurported Arkansas statewide restitution/monetary relief class.Restitution and/or monetary relief for United American's allegedbreaches of contract, costs, attorney's fees and expenses, expertfees, prejudgment interest and other relief are sought on behalfof the plaintiff and members of the class. On December 7, 2011,United American filed a Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's amendedcomplaint and on January 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a responsethereto. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, marketsprimarily individual life and supplemental health insurance andannuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. Thecompany operates in two segments: insurance, which includes theinsurance product lines of life, health and annuities, andinvestments, which supports the product lines.

TORCHMARK CORP: Trial in "Smith" Suit Continued Due to Settlement-----------------------------------------------------------------Trial in the class action lawsuit captioned Smith and Ivie v.Collingsworth, et al., was continued at a later date inconsideration of the parties' agreement to settle the case,according to Torchmark Corporation's February 28, 2012, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2011.

The Company's subsidiary, United American Insurance Company, wasnamed as a defendant in purported class action litigationoriginally filed on September 16, 2004, in the Circuit Court ofSaline County, Arkansas, on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers ofassociation group health insurance policies or certificates issuedby United American through Heartland Alliance of AmericaAssociation and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc. (Smith and Ivie v.Collingsworth, et al., CV2004-742-2). The plaintiffs assertedclaims for fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, common lawliability for non-disclosure, breach of fiduciary duties, civilconspiracy, unjust enrichment, violation of the Arkansas DeceptiveTrade Practices Act, and violation of Arkansas law and the rulesand regulations of the Arkansas Insurance Department. Declaratory,injunctive and equitable relief, as well as actual and punitivedamages were sought by the plaintiffs. OnSeptember 7, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint toassert a nation-wide class, defined as all United Americaninsureds who simultaneously purchased both an individual Hospitaland Surgical Expense health insurance policy (Form HSXC) and anindividual supplemental term life insurance policy (Form RT85)from Farm & Ranch through Heartland.

Defendants removed this litigation to the United States DistrictCourt for the Western District of Arkansas (No. 4:05-cv-1382) butthat Court remanded the litigation back to the state court onplaintiffs' motion. On July 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed asecond amended complaint, asserting a class defined as "allpersons who, between January 1998 and the present, were residentsof Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana or Texas, andpurchased through Farm & Ranch: (1) a health insurance policyissued by United American known as Flexguard Plan, CS-1 CommonSense Plan, GSP Good Sense Plan, SHXC Surgical & Hospital ExpensePolicy, HSXC 7500 Hospital/Surgical Plan, MMXC Hospital/SurgicalPlan, SMXC Surgical/Medical Expense Plan and/or SSXC SurgicalSafeguard Expense Plan, and (ii) a membership in Heartland."Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation ofArkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and/or applicable consumerprotection laws in other states, unjust enrichment, and common lawfraud. Plaintiffs seek actual, compensatory, statutory andpunitive damages, equitable and declaratory relief. OnSeptember 8, 2009, the Saline County Circuit Court granted theplaintiff's motion certifying the class. On October 7, 2009,United American filed its notice of appeal of the classcertification and subsequently filed its appellate brief onApril 8, 2010. On December 2, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Courtaffirmed the lower court's decision to certify the class.

On January 6, 2012, the parties agreed in principal to settle thecase. On January 11, 2012, the Court ordered the continuation ofthe trial, previously set to commence on January 17, 2012, pendingnotice to the class and the Court's consideration of the agreed-upon settlement.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, marketsprimarily individual life and supplemental health insurance andannuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S. Thecompany operates in two segments: insurance, which includes theinsurance product lines of life, health and annuities, andinvestments, which supports the product lines.

UNITED STATES: Army Corps Seek Farmers' Class Action Dismissal--------------------------------------------------------------Scott Moyers, writing for Daily Dunklin Democrat, reports that theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers is seeking to quash a class-actionlawsuit brought by more than 140 Southeast Missouri farmers whoare seeking millions in damages caused by last May's intentionalbreaching of the levee protecting the Birds Point-New MadridFloodway.

The U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., acting on behalfof the government and the corps, has filed a motion to dismiss thelawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Oral arguments arescheduled for April 10 in the nation's capital in front of federalJudge Nancy B. Firestone.

In its motion, the corps claims that the lawsuit fails to state alegitimate claim for which relief can be granted. Primarily, themotion asserts that because the floodway isn't intentionallybreached often, it doesn't constitute a government "taking" ofland.

"It doesn't matter if it's one time or five times, if youintentionally damage someone's property -- which is what the corpsdid here -- it's a taking," Mr. Ponder said on March 29. "Thecase law bears that out."

In May, the corps used explosives to breach the levee in threespots to allow the swelling Mississippi River to inundate largetracts of floodway property in Mississippi and New Madridcounties. The corps said at the time, and the courts agreed, thatit was its right to intentionally activate the floodway toalleviate flooding in other areas.

The actions of the corps, by its own estimate, created more than$300 million in damage to private property, including $80 millionin crop losses. More than 90 homes suffered substantial damages,according to the lawsuit, along with destroyed farm operations andequipment. The intentional breach and subsequent flooding alsodestroyed property and devalued ground. The lawsuit by thefarmers says that constitutes a "taking" by the corps under theU.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which is a part of the Billof Rights and protects against abuse of government authority in alegal procedure.

The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment, citing ongoinglitigation.

In its rebuttal, the corps says the land was not permanentlyflooded as a result of the floodway's operation. As a matter oflaw, the motion says, one flood does not constitute a taking andthat "inevitable recurring flooding must be based on actualflooding events, not speculative future floods." In fact, themotion to dismiss says, the floodway would flood more frequentlyif the levees were not in place.

Mr. Ponder and his clients disagree.

"We believe the corps' motion is not well founded," Mr. Pondersaid. "We believe the taking claims will go forward and that, inthe end, the court will allow the case to proceed to trial."

The lawsuit does not put an exact price on what the farmers hopeto receive in monetary damages. Mr. Ponder said the lawsuit isasking the court to make a "fair determination" of what thedamages are.

John Moreton of Cape Girardeau, who farms 1,600 acres in thefloodway, is one of the plaintiffs. His family has not beenreimbursed for property damage or loss of wheat that he couldn'tplant because his land was underwater. While Mr. Moreton wouldnot give an exact estimate of what his actual losses are, heagreed that "tens of thousands" is not inaccurate.

"We didn't get any reimbursement for any damages to the land,"Mr. Moreton said. "This court case is trying to get some of thosedamages."

If the judge sides with the farmers, the next step will be to seta schedule for discovery -- the pretrial phase in a lawsuit inwhich each party can obtain evidence from the opposing sidethrough request for documents and taking depositions, etc.

If it reaches the trial level, courts of claims decisions aredecided by a judge, not a jury. Mr. Ponder said he hopes thematter goes before a trial judge by the end of the year, though heexpects however the judge rules next month will be appealed.

The class action lawsuit was led by institutional investors whoclaimed that Wilmington Trust officials made several false andmisleading statements about the bank's financial condition beforeits imploding loan portfolio resulted in a hasty acquisition byM&T Bank in 2010.

But the judge ruled last week that the plaintiffs failed toidentify the alleged false and misleading statements on which theybase their claims with the required specificity.

While dismissing the lawsuit, the judge gave the plaintiffs untilApril 30 to file an amended complaint.

Buffalo N.Y.-based M&T paid about $351 million for WilmingtonTrust, which had been reeling from a deteriorating portfolio ofcommercial real estate construction loans.

WPX ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Price Indices------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend lawsuits allegingmanipulation of published gas price indices, according to theCompany's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2011.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gasprice indices have been brought against the Company and others,seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The Company is currentlya defendant in class action litigation and other litigationoriginally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri andWisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers ofnatural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to thefederal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summaryjudgment in the Colorado case in favor of the Company and most ofthe other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. OnJanuary 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request forreconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment inthe Company's favor. When a final order is entered against theone remaining defendant, the Colorado plaintiffs may appeal theorder.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district courtgranted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment topreclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federalNatural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The courtalso denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.The plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit.

Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues,including an insufficient description of the purported classes andother related matters, the Company says it cannot reasonablyestimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, itis reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these itemscould result in future charges that may be material to theCompany's results of operations.

WPX ENERGY: Faces Royalty Interest Owners' Suit in N.M. & Colo.---------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in New Mexico brought by apotential class of royalty interest owners, according to theCompany's February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2011.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners inNew Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the Company inthe County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint allegesfailure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate,fraud and misstatement of value of gas and affiliated sales,breach of duty to market hydrocarbons, violation of the New MexicoOil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, bad faith breach of contract andunjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and adeclaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to productionand payments and future reporting. This matter has been removedto the United States District Court for New Mexico. At this time,the Company believes that its royalty calculations have beenproperly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractualarrangements and applicable laws. The Company does not havesufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposurerelated to these claims.

WPX ENERGY: To Litigate Royalty Interest Suit's 2nd Claim in 2012-----------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc. said in its February 28, 2012, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended December 31, 2011, that a second reserved claim in the classaction lawsuit pending in Colorado will be litigated this year.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,Colorado, filed a class action lawsuit in District Court, GarfieldCounty, Colorado, alleging the Company improperly calculated oiland gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds receivedfrom the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperlycharged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld inexcess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought tocertify a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpaymentof royalties and obtain corrected payments resulting fromcalculation errors. The Company entered into a final partialsettlement agreement. The partial settlement agreement definedthe class for certification resolved claims relating to pastcalculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments,established certain rules to govern future royalty and overridingroyalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding forad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds ofany such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claimsfor court resolution. The Company has prevailed at the trialcourt and all levels of appeal on the first reserved claimregarding whether the Company is allowed to deduct mainlinepipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain leaseagreements. The remaining claim is whether the Company isrequired to have proportionately increased the value of naturalgas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and,if required, whether the Company did so and are entitled to deducta proportionate share of transportation costs in calculatingroyalty payments. The Company anticipates litigating the secondreserved claim in 2012.

The Company believes its royalty calculations have been properlydetermined in accordance with the appropriate contractualarrangements and Colorado law. At this time, the plaintiffs havenot provided the Company a sufficient framework to calculate anestimated range of exposure related to their claims.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapmanat 240/629-3300.